Summary: Mr B complained that the Council failed to adequately explain to him why it had refused his application for a Blue Badge. We find the Council at fault and it has agreed to process a new application for Mr B.

The complaint

1. Mr B complains that Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (the Council) failed to explain why it refused his application for a Blue badge. Specifically, it failed to explain why it discounted the evidence he provided himself and that provided by his GP. He is uncertain and frustrated as he does not understand why the Council made this decision.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
3. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I have considered the complaint and the documents provided by the complainant, made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided. Mr B and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Blue Badge Scheme local authority guidance (August 2019)

5. This guidance was updated to include consideration of ‘hidden disabilities’. It says people may be eligible who ‘experience very considerable difficulty whilst walking, which may include very considerable psychological distress’.

What happened

6. In September 2019 Mr B applied for a blue badge under the ‘hidden disabilities’ criteria. He said:
• He struggles to plan or follow a journey.
• It applies to almost every journey.
• He regularly has intense and overwhelming responses to situations causing temporary loss of behavioural control.
• This happens on almost every journey.
7. He said ‘if I cannot park near shops or places I want to be I will not walk too far and just return home to prevent intense panic and distress’.
8. He described things that affect him taking a journey: ‘Seeing people from my past while walking from A to B…not being able to get to where I want to be quickly…sometimes needing a taxi so I can get as close as I need to be and fear of not being able to get a parking space near I want to be’.
9. He said a blue badge would improve journeys: ‘Parking near where I want to be I am sure would help my panic attacks and reassure me my car is near should I need to get to it quickly’.
10. In answer to what measures he takes to try and improve journeys between car and destination: ‘Choosing times of days when I think I may be able to get a parking space near where I want to be…that being a bit of a lottery…or getting a taxi to be sure that I would be able to get as near as possible to where I want to be without my anxiety building up’.
11. In response to how effective the measures are he said they are ‘Unreliable… sometimes if I cannot park near shops or places I want to be I will just return home and maybe or not get a taxi sometime after depending on my state of mind.’
12. The Council referred his application to an Occupational Therapist (OT) (an expert assessor) for checking.
13. The OT advised the application should be declined but did not give any specific reasons. The Council sent Mr B a generic email sent saying: ‘There is insufficient evidence to support issuing a badge. The legislation is specifically in place to help people where their psychological distress and /or risk of harm is unmanageable and therefore cannot be mitigated.’
14. Mr B requested a review. He said he had caused harm to a woman whom he knocked over while rushing back to his car. He also enclosed two old GP letters from 2010 and 2015. The later one said:

He describes frequent panic attacks particularly when in public places, so he goes out very infrequently now because he is frightened of triggering a panic attack.

15. The Council refused a review citing the following:

Evidence from your GP is out of date and the letters provided are from 2010 and 2015. Your application did not evidence overwhelming anxiety/panic episodes on every journey, how you manage this anxiety and what strategies you use

16. It only referred to physical difficulties with walking in the decision and did not mention the hidden disabilities criteria.
17. In December 2019 Mr B requested a further review saying:

Concerning strategies, I will not attempt to park anywhere that is not close to where I want to be – being afraid of severe panic of walking too far out of my comfort zone. I need to be as near as possible to my car- which I regard as an escape sanctuary, I will regularly in fact always cancel my trip if I cannot find a parking space close to where I want to be – fear of guaranteed panic.

18. He also enclosed a current letter from his GP which said:

This man has generalised anxiety disorder, requiring regular medication, that affects his daily activities such that his ability to be close to his destination when driving is beneficial to avoid him having to walk through congested areas which he finds very distressing.

19. In February 2020 the Council upheld its decision. It quoted the correct bits of the legislation relating to hidden disabilities. It said:

There is not enough evidence to support why you cannot complete a journey from vehicle to destination, how often your journeys are not completed or undertaken explaining the impact your condition has on your ability to do so.

20. Mr B complained to the Ombudsman.
21. In response to my enquiries the Council provided the OT’s notes. They said that Mr B has anxiety and depression which results in panic attacks. They acknowledged that he avoids journeys to prevent panic attacks some of the time but continues to make journeys if he can park near to his destination. He sometimes gets taxis as an alternative. The OT concluded there was no evidence to indicate an inability to undertake a journey.

Analysis

22. I can see the Council has considered the information Mr B has provided but I do not consider it has adequately explained why Mr B does not qualify. In particular it has failed to give reasons why Mr B’s evidence and the more recent evidence from his GP have been discounted.
23. Mr B says he experiences severe anxiety on almost every journey and either abandons the trip or doesn’t attempt it. The GP confirms that Mr B finds walking through congested areas very distressing. The Council should have explained why, even with this evidence, Mr B does not meet the criteria and why Mr B’s own evidence, that he sometimes could not undertake a journey, was discounted. The failure to do so was fault which caused Mr B frustration and distress and he cannot understand why he has been refused.
24. The Council exacerbated this frustration by only referring to the impact of physical disabilities in its first decision letter and giving no specific reasons why Mr B doesn’t qualify. This was fault.
25. The second decision was better in at least giving some explanation for the refusal. But it did not explain why the evidence provided was insufficient and what more evidence Mr B could provide.
26. I understand that the Council may consider Mr B’s condition is not severe enough to qualify but it needs to explain this in plain English. I consider it should also indicate the level of difficulty he needs to demonstrate to qualify for the badge.

Agreed action

27. I asked the Council (within one month of the date of my final decision) to invite a new application from Mr B with suggestions of acceptable evidence he could provide to demonstrate the extent of his difficulties. The Council has agreed to this and says suggestions of other evidence Mr B could provide are available on its website.
28. I also asked it to consider the application within two months and provide a decision letter with full reasons for the decision, making specific reference to the information Mr B has provided. The Council has agreed to this.

Back to top

Final decision

29. I consider this is a proportionate way of putting right the injustice caused to Mr B and I have completed my investigation on this basis.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman